times during the day the Claimant was not in his assigned location, or if he was working he was doing so slowly. On several occasions during the day, Koviack told the Claimant that he was not happy with his work, and suggested that he work harder. The final incident of the day, which triggered discipline, concerned Koviack assigning the Claimant and one other man to move a barrel. While the other employee did get in position, the Claimant refused to move the barrel and complained about mud in the area. Koviack told the Claimant to straddle the barrel and thereby avoid the mud. The Claimant did not, however, move the barrel. Koviack then decided to assess discipline.
Koviack determined to give the Claimant a verbal warning. Upon review of the matter by Koviack's superiors, however, it was determined that based upon the Claimant's past work record, a three day suspension was appropriate. The Authority informed Claimant of this three day suspension on or about June 8, 1987.
The Organization ti'rocessed a grievance on the Claimant's behalf. The Authority ultimately agreed to reduce the discipline from a three to a one day suspension. The Organization still maintained that no discipline at all was appropriate, and therefore placed the matter before this Board.
The Authority maintains that the Claimant, at the verylenient in light of the Claimant's blatant refusal to perform his work assignment and his previously poor work record.
The Organization asserts that even a reduced discipline of a one day suspension is unacceptable based upon the record. The organization maintains that the Claimant was not afforded his right to know the cause of the discipline being assessed by being afforded a clear and timely synopsis on the Report of Interview. The Authority's lack of sufficient information and its reliance on a vague report from the foreman is further revealed, according to the organization, by confusion over the date the Claimant's alleged substandard job performance occurred. Finally, the organization argues that the Carrier has failed to meet its burden of establishing facts to justify the charge of substandard performance.
The Board rejects the Organization's forceful arguments that the claim should be sustained because the Carrier did not provide sufficient information concerning the charges. The Board is satisfied that the Claimant was aware of the date and incident involved in this matter, particularly since Koviack was not his regular supervisor. The testimony of Koviack at the Board hearing established that the Claimant repeatedly failed to perform his work on the date in question in a proper fashion, was warned several times to work harder, and finally refused a direct order to move a barrel.
The Authority committed no procedural error warranting a sustaining of the claim. While the Organization has been successful in having the Claimant's discipline reduced from a three day to a one day suspension, the Claimant's own actions and previous work record, which contains a number of previous disciplinary actions, precludes a further lessening of the penalty.